Discussion Forum: Stakeholder Power, Influence, and Benefits in the Sundarbans Resilience Project
Who holds the most influence, and who benefits the most?
Based on the power–benefit stakeholder mapping, government agencies and international donors hold the most influence in the Sundarbans Resilience Project. Institutions such as the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the Bangladesh Forest Department, and international development partners control policy decisions, funding, regulations, and project priorities.
In contrast, local communities—particularly farmers, fishers, women, children, and the elderly—benefit the most from the project’s outcomes. Improved mangrove restoration, disaster-resistant infrastructure, and livelihood diversification directly affect their safety, health, food security, and income stability, even though they have comparatively low formal decision-making power.
Stakeholder roles, benefits, and influence
Government agenciesRole: Policy formulation, regulatory enforcement, ecosystem management, disaster preparednessBenefits: Achievement of national climate goals, reduced disaster response costs, international credibilityInfluence: High
International donors and development partnersRole: Funding, technical support, monitoring and evaluationBenefits: Demonstrated climate adaptation success, accountability to global climate commitmentsInfluence: High
NGOs and civil society organizationsRole: Community mobilization, livelihood training, awareness-building, bridging policy and local needsBenefits: Stronger community resilience outcomes, institutional learningInfluence: Medium
Local communities (rights-holders)Role: Implementation, local knowledge sharing, maintenance of adaptation measuresBenefits: Reduced climate risk, improved livelihoods, safer water, better healthInfluence: Low to Medium
Researchers and academic institutionsRole: Climate research, monitoring, evidence-based guidanceBenefits: Data generation, policy relevance, academic outputsInfluence: Low
Contributions and dependencies among groups
The project depends on government agencies for legitimacy and enforcement, donors for financial sustainability, NGOs for inclusive engagement, and researchers for technical accuracy. At the same time, local communities depend on all other groups for protection, resources, and long-term resilience. This interdependence shows that no single actor can ensure success alone—effective collaboration is essential.
Power imbalances and overlooked voices
A key power imbalance exists between high-influence decision-makers and low-power rights-holders. Women, elderly people, and marginalized households—despite being the most affected by salinity, flooding, and health risks—often have limited influence in formal planning. If their voices are overlooked, adaptation measures risk being technically sound but socially ineffective, threatening long-term sustainability.
Determining power and influence
Power and influence were determined by analyzing:
Control over resources and funding
Authority in policy and regulation
Ability to shape project objectives
Level of direct exposure to climate risks and benefits
This approach aligns with the module’s stakeholder mapping framework and highlights why high-benefit stakeholders must be meaningfully engaged, even if their formal power is low.
Peer Response (Example)
In response to a peer’s post, I noticed they placed NGOs in the “Manage Closely” category, whereas I categorized them as Local Influencers. This difference highlights how perspectives vary depending on whether influence is viewed as formal authority or social trust and community access. The comparison reveals that climate adaptation projects require both types of influence—policy power and grassroots legitimacy—to succeed.
Final Reflection
This exercise reinforced that equitable stakeholder engagement is not optional in climate adaptation. Projects like the Sundarbans Resilience Project succeed when power holders listen to rights-holders and when benefits are matched with meaningful participation.